Post:

If you’re still shipping load‑bearing code in C, C++, Python, or vanilla JavaScript in 2025, you’re gambling with house money and calling it “experience.”

As systems scale, untyped or foot‑gun‑heavy languages don’t just get harder to work with—they hit a complexity cliff. Every new feature is another chance for a runtime type error or a memory bug to land in prod. Now layer LLM‑generated glue code on top of that. More code, more surface area, less anyone truly understands. In that world, “we’ll catch it in tests” is wishful thinking, not a strategy.

We don’t live in 1998 anymore. We have languages that:

  • Make whole classes of bugs unrepresentable (Rust, TypeScript)
  • Give you memory safety and concurrency sanity by default (Rust, Go)
  • Provide static structure that both humans and LLMs can lean on as guardrails, not red tape

At this point, choosing C/C++ for safety‑critical paths, or dynamic languages for the core of a large system, isn’t just “old school.” It’s negligence with better marketing.

Use Rust, Go, or TypeScript for anything that actually matters. Use Python/JS at the edges, for scripts and prototypes.

For production, load‑bearing paths in 2025 and beyond, anything else is you saying, out loud:

“I’m okay with avoidable runtime failures and undefined behavior in my critical systems.”

Are you?

Comment:

Nonsense. If your code has reached the point of unmaintainable complexity, then blame the author, not the language.

  • Shirasho@lemmings.world
    2·
    17 days ago

    “Blame the author, not the language”

    Says the person who screams they have never worked professionally with a team before.

    There is no excuse to not use statically typed, safe languages nowadays. There are languages that let you build faster like Python and Typescript, but faster does not mean safer. Even if your code is flawless it still isn’t safe because all it takes is a single flawed line of code. The more bug vectors you remove the better the language is.

    • Ember James@lemmy.ca
      1·
      17 days ago

      Even if your code is flawless it still isn’t safe because all it takes is a single flawed line of code.

      If there is a single flawed line of code, the code isn’t flawless.

      • homoludens@feddit.org
        1·
        17 days ago

        Even if the code is flawless now, all it takes is a single flawed line of new code. This is of course true for all languages, but type safety helps a lot as some types of flaws would not compile.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      0·
      17 days ago

      let you build faster like Python

      I have to write so much boilerplate code to make sure my objects are of the correct type and have the required attributes! Every time I write an extension for Blender that uses context access, I have to make sure that the context is correct, that the context has the proper accessor attributes (which may not be present in some contexts), that the active datablock is not None, that the active datablock’s data type (with respect to Blender, not Python) is correct, that the active datablock’s data is not None… either all that or let the exception fall through the stack and catch it at the last moment with a bare except and a generic error message.

      I used to think that static typing was an obstacle. Now I’m burning in the isinstance/hasattr/getattr/setattr hell.

      • reabsorbthelight@lemmy.world
        1·
        17 days ago

        I loved python when I was a junior dev. Now I hate it (except for things like computational math). I have to add debug statements to figure out that someone snuck in the wrong type into the code.